I think BC is heavily into soft factors this cycle. I've found several people who got in who have both lower GPAs and LSATs than me, but most of them are varsity athletes, non-traditionals, or spent time in the military.

This is how all schools should do their admissions.

Yeah says you. Let's have all admissions decisions based on who can join the most clubs instead of who has better numbers.

I think BC is heavily into soft factors this cycle. I've found several people who got in who have both lower GPAs and LSATs than me, but most of them are varsity athletes, non-traditionals, or spent time in the military.

This is how all schools should do their admissions.

Yeah says you. Let's have all admissions decisions based on who can join the most clubs instead of who has better numbers.

You're right: If it was simply judging someone by the QUANTITY of interests outside of schoolwork the process of judging people by those soft factors would be worthless.

What I meant and was responding to was the judgment that BC weighed the QUALITY of soft factors like demonstrated leadership skills as playing a significant role in their decision-making process.

Being a great attorney is not the same as being a great student. There is an intellectual overlap, but it is equally important to possess judgment that people trust, the ability to put someone else's interests before your own, and the negotiating skills to reach favorable compromises. These are soft factors that are better understood by admissions offices through work that each applicant has done outside the classroom.

To have over the long-term the most successful alumni, law schools should do their best to weigh these soft factors along with class work and the LSAT. Some schools do, many don't.

I think BC is heavily into soft factors this cycle. I've found several people who got in who have both lower GPAs and LSATs than me, but most of them are varsity athletes, non-traditionals, or spent time in the military.

This is how all schools should do their admissions.

Yeah says you. Let's have all admissions decisions based on who can join the most clubs instead of who has better numbers.

You're right: If it was simply judging someone by the QUANTITY of interests outside of schoolwork the process of judging people by those soft factors would be worthless.

What I meant and was responding to was the judgment that BC weighed the QUALITY of soft factors like demonstrated leadership skills as playing a significant role in their decision-making process.

Being a great attorney is not the same as being a great student. There is an intellectual overlap, but it is equally important to possess judgment that people trust, the ability to put someone else's interests before your own, and the negotiating skills to reach favorable compromises. These are soft factors that are better understood by admissions offices through work that each applicant has done outside the classroom.

To have over the long-term the most successful alumni, law schools should do their best to weigh these soft factors along with class work and the LSAT. Some schools do, many don't.

In theory, I agree with your "should do" claims 100% (for what it's worth). In reality, though, thinking any law school admissions office has the capacity to carefully weigh the quality of each soft factor contained in every one of its 6000+ applications is a delusion of the highest degree. The same holds true for any type of class work analysis beyond cumulative GPA.

The best anyone can hope for is that his/her application has at least one "standout" quantifiable factor (GPA, LSAT score, URM status) which catches a targeted law school's attention enough to warrant a closer look.